Late, but +1 -- Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 annotate categories > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Was talking with Eric off-list about a recent test he added. >> >> Over the past two major release lines (1.6 and 1.7), there's been a >> significant level of effort put forth by multiple devs to get the >> integration tests running on "terrible" hardware. This has been a great >> endeavor because our tests have never been more stable and it's even helped >> us catch bugs that we would have otherwise assumed as transiently failing >> (ACCUMULO-3859 is a great example). >> >> Because we are writing a database, we're always concerned about >> performance regressions, both high-level and low-level. I'd like to propose >> that we recognize and accept this head-on and try to move these >> specifically "high-load" and "performance related" tests to their own >> execution phase that we can run specifically on nodes that meet the >> necessary preconditions. >> >> Some examples of tests: >> >> DeleteTableDuringSplitIT >> DurabilityIT >> ManySplitIT >> RollWALPerformanceIT >> >> I know we can do some classification of tests via surefire/failsafe which >> should roughly meet our goals (typically via an annotation on the class). >> Thus, we could add a specific flag to a Maven build that would include this >> subset of tests. >> >> What do people think? Do others also think that this is worth pursuing? >> >> - Josh >>
